[design219]

Thanks Laminar

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

*giggle*

Eek! Apologies to Sek929!!!

Originally Posted by design219 

I too laugh at passive aggressive stuff

Huh?!? Talk about totally off the ball! I confused two people and numbers they have in their nicknames.

Talk about passive-aggressive, look no further than your sig.

[ironknee]

Jesus' main point in his ministry is that the "Kingdom of God" is coming and we must get ready for it.

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Matthew 16:28 (New International Version)

"standing here" as he spoke the words to the people that were there..2000 years ago. in other words,,, coming soon!

so, the question is why is it taking 2000+ years or so for what jesus was preaching?

i know some say only when certain things must happen before the "second coming" will happen... but why does God need things to happen before he comes back? God is God right?

please explain, thanks

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Talk about passive-aggressive, look no further than your sig.

Up until now, I always wondered what his sig meant, but I just got it.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

please explain, thanks

No, you wouldn't believe it anyways...

-t

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Up until now, I always wondered what his sig meant, but I just got it.

actually you probably didn't. (no offense) rr put a possible suggestion into what it means, which is probably completely wrong. thoughts of religion were in your head due to the thread. so what rr said + the thread + the guys sig = you to come to a possible false answer to your curiosity into what the sig means.

don't worry about it, suggestions can be a strong thing. just like the suggestions in some religions to practice certain things or else you'll go somewhere not so good.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

actually you probably didn't. (no offense) rr put a possible suggestion into what it means, which is probably completely wrong. thoughts of religion were in your head due to the thread. so what rr said + the thread + the guys sig = you to come to a possible false answer to your curiosity into what the sig means.

don't worry about it, suggestions can be a strong thing. just like the suggestions in some religions to practice certain things or else you'll go somewhere not so good.

You don't know what "tithe" means do you?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

actually you probably didn't. (no offense) rr put a possible suggestion into what it means, which is probably completely wrong. thoughts of religion were in your head due to the thread. so what rr said + the thread + the guys sig = you to come to a possible false answer to your curiosity into what the sig means.

I can't think of any other likely interpretation.

[subego]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

don't worry about it, suggestions can be a strong thing. just like the suggestions in some religions to practice certain things or else you'll go somewhere not so good.

That was what I thought it meant from the moment I saw it, long before this thread.

Atheist here, BTW.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

Jesus' main point in his ministry is that the "Kingdom of God" is coming and we must get ready for it.

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Matthew 16:28 (New International Version)

"standing here" as he spoke the words to the people that were there..2000 years ago. in other words,,, coming soon!

so, the question is why is it taking 2000+ years or so for what jesus was preaching?

i know some say only when certain things must happen before the "second coming" will happen... but why does God need things to happen before he comes back? God is God right?

please explain, thanks

I can explain it easily. In the "little Apocalypse" of Mark 13, Jesus "predicts" the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, and his own "enthronement" in heaven "coming in the clouds of heaven with power and glory." While the prior prediction is easy, the latter is hard to understand. What Mark is doing here is "repurposing" the Son of Man myth from Daniel to explain Jesus being raised to heaven instead of staying in Hades/Sheol.

You see, the Jews of Jesus' time did not believe that anyone died and went to heaven. Everyone went to Sheol at death (whether this was regarded as literal or allegorical is still uncertain). Mark's fundamental theology is: Jesus was raised to heaven to be with YHWH, and if you follow his teachings you too can be raised to be with YHWH. That's the meaning of the gospel of Mark. Mark's theology knows nothing of any "second coming."

The "second coming" idea comes from Paul. Paul, being the good Pharisee, knows that scriptural requirements of the Messiah (the Davidic dynasty restored, the goyim rulers being ousted, etc) were not fulfilled by Jesus in his lifetime, except the "awakening" of the dead, of which Jesus is the first. So he is expecting Jesus to return and fulfill the remaining Messianic prophesies "sometime soon."

Mark and Paul knew each other; the story of their hostility is only briefly mentioned in Acts of the Apostles. Mark thought Paul's ideas were ridiculous, and he implicitly mocks them in his gospel: "beware the leaven of the Herodians and the Pharisees." Mark regards Paul's teaching as a corruption of Jesus' Kingdom of God message.

The most important thing to know about the New Testament is: each writer has his own theological agenda. There is no single, consistent theology. Later writers like Matthew and Luke make clumsy attempts to merge Mark and Paul's ideas, but the results are uneven and transparently inconsistent.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Then explain all the conversion in Africa, Asia and India. Those are areas that do not have a history of cultural Christianity.

Actually, Ethiopia and India were exposed to Christianity by the early second century. The principle reason that Christianity didn't expand was linguistic. Judea, Egypt, Ethiopia, and India were linked by sea-trade via Alexandria. Where there was no trade (ie, deep Africa), there was no expansion.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The atheists on this forum are against the Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. on this forum, not just their lifestyles, but the individuals themselves. There have been years of baiting, attacks, and belittlement.

Your persecution complex is clouding your understanding. I don't care in the slightest about you or your lifestyle.

I've very critical of Biblical inerrantists and Biblical literalists when they suggest that their religious views should guide public policies.

The Amish are among the most "extreme" religious group in the US, but they aren't shoving their religion on others, so they're fine with me; live and let live. Your typical "religious right" person is far less "extreme" religiously, but expect their views on gays, science education, or whatever to be implemented politically.

I've no interest in living in a theocracy. Don't drag your religion into politics and I won't make fun of your beliefs.

[ghporter]

Just to keep this lively (and somewhat on topic), I'll point out that EVERYONE has a faith. Even subego-the conviction that there is no deity at all is in itself a point of faith. I'll even posit that the OP had promise in starting this thread, because how one comes to his or her current faith is part of one's life development, socialization, culture, education, etc. Around me, most people claim to be Christian, but most of 'em wouldn't let Christ in their churches-too much hair, and those sandals!!!

Growing up in a religion is not necessarily a good marker for both understanding and following that religion. For example, we know a family of quite devout Orthodox Christians. Wonderful people, who actually know about the theology behind their religion, and observe what they observe because they believe in it-all of it. I have in-laws who grew up "Christian" but later actually took out their souls and examined them critically and thoroughly-their "hearts were changed by God," and they are now quite different people. Then there are the "Sunday Christians" we all see-they claim to have God on their side, but they almost all forget about those few very important teachings that Jesus went around spreading around like "love" and "accept". I kinda wonder if they ever wonder about the price of hypocrisy. Or know the definition...

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Your persecution complex is clouding your understanding. I don't care in the slightest about you or your lifestyle.

I think it's funny that you talk about persecution complexes, yet feel you need to respond to an accusation that wasn't made directly to you. I also find it funny that if somehow you don't care, that means there must be no persecution going on.

I may have my own persecution complex, after all, my real name is Joshua, but I don't have one with regards to my religion, since as I said I'm an atheist.

So it is with a complex free conscience that I state Shaddim's observation is unequivocally correct.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think it's funny that you talk about persecution complexes, yet feel you need to respond to an accusation that wasn't made directly to you. I also find it funny that if somehow you don't care, that means there must be no persecution going on.

I may have my own persecution complex, after all, my real name is Joshua, but I don't have one with regards to my religion, since as I said I'm an atheist.

So it is with a complex free conscience that I state Shaddim's observation is unequivocally correct.

Obviously, I need to school you some.

Shaddim was attacking me directly in this post. So yes, it was directed at me. Apology accepted.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Just to keep this lively (and somewhat on topic), I'll point out that EVERYONE has a faith. Even subego-the conviction that there is no deity at all is in itself a point of faith.

Uh huh. And not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Even subego-the conviction that there is no deity at all is in itself a point of faith.

Just to be clear, there is an implied acknowledgment from me (as there is with almost everything I say) that I'm never 100% sure about anything.

Stating absolutely that there is no God would be exceedingly arrogant on my part. I think you'll find that even someone as hardcore as Richard Dawkins wouldn't make such a statement.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Because God changed my heart. Seriously, that's the only way it can happen. To say I had any input into it is to be theologically wrong.

So I can blame God for my atheism? Awesome.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Obviously, I need to school you some.

Shaddim was attacking me directly in this post. So yes, it was directed at me. Apology accepted.

Okay, my oopsie, but I don't see how that invalidates the rest of the statement.

This is the internet. [Edit: unlike the real world] It's pro-gay and anti-religion. I personally don't have a problem with that, but I'm not going to try and say that isn't true.

Likewise, many people (perhaps not you) are so immersed in it they have no idea it's happening, like any type of normalized behavior. [Edit: which on the internet, it is.]

[besson3c]

God exists, the bible says so. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable why people are Christians.

[design219]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

God exists, the bible says so. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable why people are Christians.

Well, that makes it understandable why SOME people are Christians. Access to the Bible, back to my original point.

[Chongo]

I regret to inform you of the demise of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His noodly goodness appeared on a plate at my house. I went to get my wife, and by the time I came back, this is what I found: My dogs devoured the FSM before I could stop them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

God exists, the bible says so. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable why people are Christians.

feel better now?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by design219 

Well, that makes it understandable why SOME people are Christians. Access to the Bible, back to my original point.

And some people are Christians who don't have access to the Bible... your point?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

So I can blame God for my atheism? Awesome.

Actually, yes.

For someone who claims to do so much research about the Bible and Christianity, I am astounded that this is news to you. Proof of your ignorance I guess.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

And some people are Christians who don't have access to the Bible... your point?

Sure, I'll bet some people are brought to Christianity without the Bible, I can see that, but they don't do it in a vacuum. They are told about Christianity by someone. And that is my point. If nobody tells them, and they don't read it for themselves in the Bible, they will most certainly not become Christians.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by design219 

Sure, I'll bet some people are brought to Christianity without the Bible, I can see that, but they don't do it in a vacuum. They are told about Christianity by someone. And that is my point. If nobody tells them, and they don't read it for themselves in the Bible, they will most certainly not become Christians.

You are a genius! You finally figured out why Christians follow Jesus' Great Commission! And you understand Romans chapter 1!

But that is not the intent of your original point. That was you are believe what you do because of your culture/socialization, which most people have shown was mostly false.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Uh huh. And not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Yep, if you ACTIVELY don't collect stamps. An atheist who actively denies that any deity could exist is acting on faith just as much as the zealot that wants to wake me up early in the morning on my day off to help save my soul.

Originally Posted by subego 

Just to be clear, there is an implied acknowledgment from me (as there is with almost everything I say) that I'm never 100% sure about anything.

Stating absolutely that there is no God would be exceedingly arrogant on my part. I think you'll find that even someone as hardcore as Richard Dawkins wouldn't make such a statement.

Unfortunately, far more atheists are absolutists than you are. Having lived in Austin during the Madeline Murray-O'Hare era, I've seen some doozies in that camp.

Frankly, the only person that's really "right" about their belief system is the agnostic that accepts that there could be one, a number, or an infinite number of deities, or none at all. Darn few of them, by the way. But if they are honestly agnostic, then they can honestly "not know" (the definition of agnosis) and thus either accept or ignore any and all other claims.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Frankly, the only person that's really "right" about their belief system is...

In your opinion/belief.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

which most people have shown was mostly false.

I don't agree. Bin Laden is a Muslim and not a Christian. Why? Ghandi was a Hindu and not a Muslim. Why? Billy Graham is a Christian and not a Buddhist. Why?

I have to believe where they were raised had a lot to do with it.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Frankly, the only person that's really "right" about their belief system is the agnostic that accepts that there could be one, a number, or an infinite number of deities, or none at all.

I agree completely.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by design219 

I don't agree. Bin Laden is a Muslim and not a Christian. Why? Ghandi was a Hindu and not a Muslim. Why? Billy Graham is a Christian and not a Buddhist. Why?

Are you saying Bin Laden was not exposed to Christianity? Billy Graham was not exposed to Islam?

Originally Posted by design219 

I have to believe where they were raised had a lot to do with it.

It had a factor, certainly. Bin Laden was probably facing certain death if he converted to Christianity. Try converting to Christianity in Egypt, and see how long you live. Billy Graham had the freedom to believe what he wanted. I guess it certainly has it's influences, but if you fear death for your beliefs, and you chose not to believe them, then you really didn't believe in the first place.

So, you created this post to simply state (and restate) your beliefs and not consider being influenced by anyone else's statements. Wow, that's original.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Uh huh. And not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Yep, if you ACTIVELY don't collect stamps.

[el chupacabra]

I dont understand why its so hard to understand the difference between agnostic and atheist on these boards...
quoting...
Definitions of Agnostic on the Web:

* A word first used by Professor Huxley, to indicate one who believes nothing which cannot be demonstrated by the senses.
The Key to Theosophy - Glossary 1

* An Agnostic [1] [noun] [OW] embraces a worldview in which the existence of deity is unknown or unknowable. Derives from the Greek agnostos, a = without, gnostos = known or knowledge. ...
members.aol.com/porchnus/dict01.htm

* One who holds the theory that God is unknown or unknowable
Theological Dictionary

* Someone who claims that they do not know or are unable to know whether God exists.
Glossary Of Technical Terms

* someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something
* of or pertaining to an agnostic or agnosticism
* uncertain of all claims to knowledge
* a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without", and Gnosticism or gnosis, meaning knowledge) means unknowable, and is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnost
.................................................
# ^ Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward Craig. “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”
Definitions of atheist on the Web:

* related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
* someone who denies the existence of god
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Atheismentails the absence of belief in the existence of God or other deities.Absence of belief:*"Atheists are people who do not believe in a god or gods (or other immaterial beings), or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

* Atheist is a progressive death/thrash metal band from Florida, USA, founded in 1984, whose music was technical and sometimes reminiscent of jazz. They combined brutal riffs with subtle latin music arrangements and jazz breakdowns. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist (band)

* A person whose worldview embraces Atheism [noun] [OW]. The natural condition of all humans at birth and prior to indoctrination in or self-invention of Theism. Atheists claim there is no proof for God[s]. "Strong" Atheists claim God does not exist. ...
members.aol.com/porchnus/dict01.htm

* One who rejects or is ignorant of theism.
http://www.jabcreations.com/philosop...efinitions.php

* A person for whom the idea of god is senseless. Not to be confused with a person who hates (and neccessarily believes in the existence of) god.
really good news:glossary


Hope this helps.

[subego]

^^

Are you talking to me?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

feel better now?

Yup! I believe it's healthy to conjure up some Stephen Colbert every once in a while...

[Lava Lamp Freak]

I think location has a lot to do with what religion one follows. Obviously it isn't the only determining factor.

I was raised in a Christian family. As a child I never knew anything about other religions, except that Christianity was the truth and everything else was trickery of the devil. Without a doubt I was indoctrinated into Christianity, and my parents are happy to quote Proverbs 22:6 as the reason. "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

I called myself a Christian until about a year ago, though I'd doubted things for a long time, and was never really devout. I will own up to the fact that I can't know for sure if god(s) exist. However, I will say I do not believe in the Christian god or any other gods who have ever been worshiped. So, I could be called agnostic toward the idea of god, but atheist toward all worshiped gods.

I am bewildered by people who don't believe that evolution is the correct explanation of how life came to be what it is today. To me not believing in evolution is like not believing in evaporation or photosynthesis. It isn't something to be believed in, it is an explanation of how things are. I don't think, though, that evolution can be used to disprove the existence of god(s).

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

"blood drinking rituals, etc."?!?! Fear of the Devil?!? Let me guess, Catholic? I'm, also going to guess that you didn't read the Bible much while you were a Catholic.

Nothing like Christians mocking other Christians.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Yep, if you ACTIVELY don't collect stamps.

I usually agree with you in most of what you are posting and consider you one of the most level headed and put together people on MacNN. But have you any idea how ridiculous this sounds?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by subego 

Stating absolutely that there is no God would be exceedingly arrogant on my part. I think you'll find that even someone as hardcore as Richard Dawkins wouldn't make such a statement.

I've read Richard Dawkins' book and many others. Atheism seems to be more comfortable for people to admit nowadays any many books are out there.

I think it was Dawkins who said on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being mildly positive there is no supernatural being that he is a 9. Because as you state you can never be 100% sure of anything. So I guess I must be a 9 also.

So a truly religious person would have to be a 9 on the positive that there is a supernatural being. But I don't think you would get one to admit it.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Yep, if you ACTIVELY don't collect stamps.

I can't believe I just read that? Are you Kevin?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

Alaska is predominantly Catholic?? Well, one learns something new every day!

[design219]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Are you saying Bin Laden was not exposed to Christianity? Billy Graham was not exposed to Islam?

I'm sure Billy Graham learned about Islam in a college course or too, but you are willfully ignoring the whole point. I highly doubt that he was raised by Muslims or ever entered a mosque with an open mind to a possible conversion. As an adult, I feel certain he was set in his belief system.

The same for Bin Laden. Of course he has learned about Christianity. But was he raised Christian? No. Why? Because of where he grew up.

Are their exceptions? Yes, of course, but not common. Most people are a product of their environment, and that included their religion.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

I think it was Dawkins who said on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being mildly positive there is no supernatural being that he is a 9. Because as you state you can never be 100% sure of anything. So I guess I must be a 9 also.

I've always been annoyed by this use of "sure" — it feels like pandering. It reminds me of the scene in This Is Spinal Tap where the guy is bragging about how his amp is better because its volume knob goes to 11 and all the others just go to 10. The guy he's talking to tries to explain that the numbers are just arbitrary labels and they both actually refer to the same maximum volume, but the guitarist is just like, "11 is one better than 10, right?"

If a certain degree of surety is simply impossible in reality, why not forget that and call the highest possible level "sure"? That's what we usually do in practice when we're talking about mundane issues, isn't it?

[Big Mac]

This is a strange thread, I think. It would never occur to me to ask people why they belong to a particular religious or belief classification. [Edit: Except, perhaps for membership in a cult.] I don't see why an atheist would ask such a question, unless said atheist was looking to bolster his own lack of belief.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

In your opinion/belief.

I'm not saying they're theologically "right," just that there is little "faith" in taking the position that you don't know how the universe is made. Everything else does require some level of faith-most of the time a lot of faith.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I usually agree with you in most of what you are posting and consider you one of the most level headed and put together people on MacNN. But have you any idea how ridiculous this sounds?

To state "I avoid collecting stamps" is to "actively" not collect stamps. It consumes some amount of your thought processes. To actively avoid something is as involving as actively doing it. So yes, it sounds silly, but the principle is accurate.

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

I can't believe I just read that? Are you Kevin?

I think I've been insulted. Think it through logically-if you spend time avoiding doing something, then you're ACTIVELY NOT doing it. Silly sounding, but logically correct.

And Kevin would have been incredibly rude about stating his opinions. I may sound silly, but I'm trying to not be rude at all.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Are you saying Bin Laden was not exposed to Christianity? Billy Graham was not exposed to Islam?

Are you saying Billy Graham was raised in a Muslim society?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Are you saying Billy Graham was raised in a Muslim society?

That doesn't follow at all from the excerpt you quoted. If that were written in jest, I don't get the joke.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

This is a strange thread, I think. It would never occur to me to ask people why they belong to a particular religious or belief classification. [Edit: Except, perhaps for membership in a cult.] I don't see why an atheist would ask such a question, unless said atheist was looking to bolster his own lack of belief.

I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic. As I mentioned earlier, I should have included atheist in the op, although the few atheist I know all came from religious backgrounds. I'm sure there are atheist who were raised that way.

I will also say I don't think faiths are oppositions. It could be that they are all serving their greater purpose, but using different routes. I do find it offensive when one thinks their faith is superior to others.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That doesn't follow at all from the excerpt you quoted. If that were written in jest, I don't get the joke.

It was kind of intentional. Design929 listed three people who were all notable followers of the predominant religions in the places they were raised, and he suggested that this was because they were raised around those religions, not because they sought them out. Railroader responded by asking, "Are you saying Billy Graham was not exposed to Islam?" This had nothing to do with Design's idea. My question was intended to mirror Railroader's (and sidetrack his sidetrack back to the original question).

Basically, I think it's naive to try and suggest that merely being exposed to an idea is equivalent to being raised in a culture totally pervaded by that idea. It's like suggesting that Americans actively choose not to view dogs as food by asking, "Are you saying no Americans have ever heard of people eating dogs before?" Of course there's a difference between growing up in a place where people talk fearfully of dog-eaters and a place where people actually eat dogs. In the same way, there's a difference between hearing about a religion and being culturally surrounded by a religion.

[Big Mac]

Okay, thank you for explaining what you meant. There is no doubt that the environment in which one is raised has a strong bearing on one's religion, but that doesn't mean that religion is exclusively a product of one's upbringing.